In the previous two posts of this mini-series (#1 and #2), I have set out
- why, in Informal Coalitions, I refer to organizations as dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations, rather than as "systems"; and
- how the formal ‘trappings’ of organization (such as strategies, structures, systems, and so on) fit into this view that an organization is the ongoing process of people in conversation.
In this third and final post of the set, I want to look at the impact that these complex social dynamics have on the outcomes that actually emerge.
That is, if we reject the view that organizations are rationally designed systems - producing outcomes in line with managers’ formally stated intentions - what is going on instead?
Perceiving, interpreting and evaluating
First of all, it’s important to recognize that people don’t respond to strategies, plans, rules and the like. They respond to their perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of those strategies, plans and rules – as formed, primarily, through their conversations and interactions with others. And they do this in the immediacy of their current situation - with all of the ‘messiness’ of competing demands, diverse interests, uncertainty, ambiguity, and other ‘real world’ pressures that this brings into play.
Of course, the formally stated requirements provide an important input into people’s ongoing sensemaking. But these do not (as Ralph Stacey would say) simply unfold over time in a predictable and predetermined fashion. Instead, other unspecified but openly acknowledged ways of seeing, thinking and acting affect the ways in which people make sense of the organizational world and decide how they will act. And so do consciously held but informal and hidden ways of seeing, thinking and acting (or "shadow-side" dynamics). These will all affect the outcomes that actually emerge.
Taken-for-granted patterns of assumptions
Most significantly, though, this sensemaking and action taking will also be influenced, imperceptibly, by the taken-for-granted patterns of assumptions that have emerged as a result of past sensemaking. Here, my explanation differs from Stacey’s view of how these patterns arise. As I understand it, he argues that people consciously reflect on their in-the-moment interactions to create "imaginative 'wholes' ... [that represent] perceptions of unity in the patterning of [their] interactions" (see pg 37 in Experiencing Emergence in Organizations, for example). I commented in an earlier post on the problems that I have with this view. Instead, I would describe what’s going on as follows:
The more that people make sense of things in particular ways, the more likely they are to continue to make sense of things in similar ways going forward. This tendency to think and act in line with existing patterns of thought and action becomes taken for granted. It remains out of people’s immediate awareness. But it powerfully affects the ways in which they interact, and the actions and outcomes that result.
It is not, therefore, an external ‘force’ ("the system") that compels people to think and act in particular ways – whether this is thought of in terms of the formal, structured aspects of organization or of its less tangible elements, such as the systems-thinking conception of organizational culture as a separate component of organization. Instead, it is the ongoing, self-organizing, process of people in interaction which itself tends to pattern the ways in which people perceive, interpret, evaluate and act upon emerging events and experiences. This patterning process creates expectancy. That is, the patterns of past sensemaking and action-taking tend to channel ongoing sensemaking down these familiar, increasingly well-trodden ‘pathways’. The potential always exists for these patterns to shift and novel outcomes to arise. But the balance of probability is heavily biased towards continuity rather than change – with people’s interactions tending to reinforce existing patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, rather than opening up new patterns.
Personal ‘frames’, authored identities and the response to change
It is important to recognize that these ‘patterns’ (or, more accurately, dynamic patterning processes) are not uniform across an organization but are necessarily disparate and fragmented. Because individuals are involved in a diverse range of formal and informal relationships, they tend to act in different ways in different contexts. At the same time, they wish to maintain all of these relationships in a desired state simultaneously. And, most importantly, they need to be able to ‘author’ a coherent story of their lives (their "identity") that ‘dovetails’ with the stories told by others.
In the previous post, I referred to the notion of an individual’s "personal frame of reference". It is by reference to this ‘frame’ (largely subconsciously) that people seek to keep all of their ‘relationship plates’ spinning satisfactorily. To mix metaphors, in The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran writes, "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding." An individual’s personal frame of reference can be thought of as the ‘shell that encloses their understanding’. Change often threatens to ‘crack’ this ‘shell’; which is why it is often painful for people – and why individuals respond differently to what is proposed. The ‘deeper’ the perceived ‘cracks’ that change brings, the greater the ‘pain’ that is felt – and the more that people are likely to resist it.
Seeing the ‘global’ in the ‘local’
Whilst the formal design provides the main focus for systems thinkers, the primary emphasis of those who see organizations in process terms is on the here-and-now of day-to-day interaction. Significantly, whereas the details of local interactions tend to be absent from the systems perspective, the reverse is not the case. That is, the ‘global’ designs and patterns of taken-for-granted assumptions are embedded within people’s day-to-day exchanges.
To begin with, people’s perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of the formal structures, systems and processes both enable and constrain their ongoing interactions (though not always in the ways that managers had intended - see previous post). Similarly, as discussed above, ongoing sensemaking tends to be imperceptibly channeled down ‘culturally familiar pathways’. So paying attention to what’s actually going on in the ‘here and now’ of everyday interaction provides a powerful way of understanding - and potentially helping to ‘shift’ - these underlying dynamics of organizational change and performance.
Realizing the ideal – informal coalitions
I began by suggesting that it is people’s perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of formal structures, strategies and systems that will determine what actually happens. It is not the structures, strategies and systems themselves. Indeed, viewing organizations as dynamic conversational networks means that the formal ‘trappings’ of organization only ‘exist’ at the time, and to the extent, that they inform people’s ongoing conversations. As outlined above, this sensemaking activity is also affected significantly by two other factors. First, there are the conversational themes that reflect the shadow-side dynamics of organizational life. And secondly, people’s ongoing sensemaking tends to be channeled down the ‘well-trodden’ pathways of understanding, emotion and action, which have emerged over time and become embodied in their ‘ways of being’.
As a result of these dynamics, people tend to coalesce informally around particular, locally dominant conversational themes (or narratives). And they act on the basis of the meanings that these have come to hold for them. If the dominant themes are aligned with managers’ formally stated intentions, then it is probable that the latter will be realized in practice. However, if these themes run counter to the official line, then other outcomes will undoubtedly emerge.
And in the end …
To conclude, organizations don’t decide and act on things, people do. And they do this through their day-to-day interactions with others – both within and beyond the formally defined ‘boundaries’ of their unit or organization.
The intellectual and physical artefacts of organization may be very visible and tangible, but …
it is in the ongoing negotiation of their meaning, through people’s everyday conversations and interactions, that we find the essence of organization.
How the Complex Social Process View of Organisations can increase Business Profits in a Low-Growth Economy
Chris’s explication of the dynamic nature of organisational processes and his characterisation of these as ‘the ongoing negotiation of meaning’ is compelling. No one who has ever observed and reflected on their own experience as the member of a formal organisation could fail to recognise the influence of locally dominant themes (narratives) on the practical implementation of the formal organisation; nor of tacit assumptions beyond conscious awareness on the individual sense-making which informs the coalescence of people around conversational themes which they find meaningful.
Many years ago, for example, I was invited to find out why aircraft baggage handlers at Heathrow were resistant to the formally agreed resolution of a chronic industrial relations dispute. I found that their trades union representatives had little more understanding of what the details of the dispute actually represented ‘symbolically’ to those involved than the airline’s managers and professional negotiators. No one had thought it important to listen to the conversations in the Loaders’ Hut, and when I did it became apparent that what had been expressed as a dispute about formal procedures was in fact a series of competing narratives (local conversations) expressing dissatisfaction about the relative status of categories of employee who looked identical in the formal organisation. Failure to comprehend the dominant local narratives cost the airline many millions of pounds in persistent strikes by baggage handlers. Even worse, the situation remained unchanged for several years afterwards because the ‘culturally familiar pathway’ of airline senior managers precluded the (deeply challenging) idea that any members of the lowest caste of airline workers might deserve the symbolic dignity usually reserved for customer contact staff.
In times of fast economic growth, business leaders can afford to give their employees the impression that the formal organisation is all-powerful (and I think they believe it, too. But when market growth is slow, profits can only be made on the back of improved employee productivity. Any organisation leader who attempts to get more, or better, results from the same employees, for the same money is in the business of negotiation, even if they don’t acknowledge this openly. Q: What can business leaders negotiate with, if not cash? A: symbolic values. A wise organisation leader, seeking a cost-effective increase in productivity in a slow market, could do worse than to take Chris’s advice and ‘pay attention to the “here and now” of everyday interaction'. If they were to so, they would gain an understanding of the local dynamics within their organisation and, building, I hope, on what Chris says, the ways in which symbolic support for local cultural values might be tacitly ‘exchanged’ for a greater commitment to organisational goals; potentially facilitating increased productivity through innovation, customer service etc, in the way airline managers eventually decided to tackle the baggage loader ‘problem’.
The wisest of all would employ an organisational analyst with great sensitivity and subtlety who is unlikely to be blinded by the organisation’s taken-for-granted assumptions and who has the analytical skill and experience to make sense of the local conversations to which he is party. In other words they would want Chris Rodgers . (I apologise for failing to hide my admiration for Chris . I know of no one else who combines the modesty of a deep listener with an unrivalled understanding of organisational dynamics.) Sorry, Chris.
Posted by: Deborah Booth | 25 April 2010 at 11:03 PM